Emilio Bisceglia

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for exceeding capacity limits and failing to maintain a required door attendant.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting the violations and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a seven-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Smardenka Restaurants Limited for exceeding capacity and failing to have an attendant at the rear door.

The parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 7-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The respondent sued the appellant personally for a contract debt.

At trial, the appellant's counsel consented to judgment against the appellant's numbered company, and the trial proceeded against the appellant personally.

The trial judge found the appellant personally liable because he held himself out as the owner of the business and did not clarify he was contracting through a corporation.

On appeal, the appellant argued the respondent could not obtain judgment against both the agent and the principal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not rely on this defence because it was not pleaded and was raised too late, prejudicing the respondent.

The appellants appealed a judgment confirming a Master's report on an accounting of music royalties for the song 'When I Am With You'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the corporate publisher's appeal regarding the calculation of co-publishing revenues and prejudgment interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal of the corporation's directing mind, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and hold him personally liable.

The Court also allowed the respondents' cross-appeal, finding that performing rights royalties should be included in the calculation of co-publishing revenues based on the plain meaning of the agreement and the parties' prior conduct.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its solicitor's negligence action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was barred from relitigating the previously determined issue that recission was unavailable in the underlying commercial action, and therefore could not maintain negligence allegations premised on the solicitor's failure to plead recission.

However, the court accepted that the statement of claim also contained distinct negligence allegations unrelated to recission.

The appeal was allowed in part, the recission-based claims remained barred, and the remaining negligence claims were permitted to proceed.

No costs were awarded because success was divided.